Background: Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1 is a peptide hormone implicated in insulin sensitivity and anti-inflammatory. However, there is limited exploration of the association of serum IGF-1 levels with cognitive function and atherosclerosis. This study aimed to investigate the association between serum IGF-1 levels and cognitive function, as well as carotid atherosclerosis in a general population. Methods: In 1,345 participants (544 men; mean age, 68.7 (11.3) years) recruited from the Tanushimaru cohort, we measured their serum IGF-1 levels and evaluated cognitive function using mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and atherosclerosis through carotid intima-media thickness (IMT). Linear regression models were utilized to analyze the association between quartiles of serum IGF-1 levels and MMSE scores, as well as IMT, continuous dependent variables. We also visualized the continuous associations using restricted cubic spline models. Two-sided statistical significance was defined as p <0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using the SAS system (Release 9.4, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Results: The mean serum IGF-1 level was 96.6 (30.2) ng/ml. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that the highest quartile of serum IGF-1 levels showed a statistically significant association with higher MMSE scores (p=0.0019), and the third quartile also reached statistical significance (p=0.0006) compared to the lowest. We observed a positive association between serum IGF-1 levels and MMSE scores, even when exploring the full spectrum of serum IGF-1 levels with their spline terms (Figure). In contrast, serum IGF-1 levels did not exhibit a significant association with IMT measurements. Conclusion: High serum IGF-1 levels were associated with higher cognitive function, while no significant association was observed with carotid atherosclerosis. Our findings suggest that IGF-1 levels may play a role in preserving cognitive function, potentially distinct from its role in atherosclerosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nohara‐Shitama et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: